An Open Letter Chapter 3 - The Jacobite History of the World

Summary:

Up to this point Moldbug/Yarvin has been challenging one particular basic assumption of progressives: that the post colonial establishment (and progressivism) has been a liberation and a blessing for all nations it has touched.
In the second chapter especially, he gives a historical argument concerning the inconsistencies and contradictions in the narrative of “independence” and “national self-determinism” despite the apparent benevolence and intelligence of the progressives involved.

In Chapter 3, having explored a number of complications to the liberal historical narrative, he begins to turn towards the question of history as such.
He gives two examples of journalists noticing challenges to their progressive model of history and shying away from considering their implications.

These words are at least somewhat useful over the course of “modern” history.
He argues that while a similar system doesn’t really work for “music” and what counts as progressive vs reactionary there would be far more confused.

What is a Reactionary: someone who believes in order, stability, and security; a “legitimist.”
He admits that the “legitimate order” he believes in is arbitrary
He rejects a theological or ecclesial understanding of legitimacy.

Progressives are not directly in opposition of tradition or order as such
They are inheritors of a tradition of change dating to the Enlightenment
They believe the world is progressing toward continual improvement over current affairs.
Progressivism is justified by a vicious cycle (it is good because it succeeds and it succeeds because it is good).
It is clear that they do at least have a near unbroken line of political successes to point to and suggests possible explanations for it such as Divine Providence and dialectical materialism before deciding to refer to it as W(Whig)-force.

The W-force is a "mysterious" force that drives progress and change
Moldbug considers and rejects a number of explanations for the W-force from within the progressive paradigm before giving a “reactionary reading” of the question.
There is an ideological distance between progressives in the past and their heirs in our present and how many of their prophecies turned out to be untrue.
Attempts to compromise with the forces of progressivism have failed in the past - modern conservatism is just another such attempt.

Reactionary movements have been and will be more successful by directly opposing progressivism altogether.
Further, Fascism, aside from other moral questions, is not a practical solution because it required surviving elements of the ancien regime that no longer exist.

Progressives are not for chaos but they are always for the total liquidation of the present order, whatever it may happen to be, in order to create a better one.
This process requires gaining a lot of power over the existing order and destroying its defenders therefore attracts people who like having power and destroying enemies.
If it helps to actually improve the human condition along the way, it is only by accident.
The W-force of progressivism is therefore entropy
Stability and order inevitably decay and progressives thrive off of this process.